TRANSGENDERS

  By Florida Bill 

                                                  A few days ago, President Trump announced in a morning tweet that transgenders would not be permitted to serve in the military in any capacity.  While the tweet revealed the president's intentions, it did not make new law.  But it lifted the curtain on a whole new controversy, coming just a year after his predecessor had ordered that transgenders would no longer be banned from serving openly. Trump's tweet read:
                                "After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military.....Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."
                                            Almost immediately, the anti-Trump machine led by CNN, NBC and the New York Times labeled the Republican president a racist and a bigot, and phony shotgun polls were published that Trump's popularity "had hit a new low."  One congressman told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that barring transgenders from serving was shameful and would cause the country to be less safe. 
                                            Aside from the absurdity of diminished safety, it was maintained by liberal pundits that "tens of thousands" of transgendered men and women wear the uniform of their country.  Others put the number at 15,000 now serving in the army, navy, marines and air force.  One conservative organization estimated that there were a mere 250 transgendering military persons. 
                                            Speaking of "how many," the Department of Defense said that the exact numbers of transgenders serving is simply not known as there is only "very limited data" available. Rand researchers in 2016, at direction of the DOD, reported estimates of between 1,300 and 6,600 on active duty and between 830 to 4,100 in the reserves. With such wide-ranging numbers being bandied about, it is clear no one has a clear idea of what is going on on the transgender military front.
                                            The president believes that their presence in the ranks is "disruptive."  He is wrong and a bigot, assert liberal CNN pundits, most of whom have never served in the military and have zero idea of what goes on in barracks and around servicemen. 
                                            Do you believe that there is anything out of line when a transitioning man is assigned to the female barracks, splashing about in the shower room?  Is it appropriate for a woman seeking to become a man to take up residence in the men's barracks before and after the genital reassignment surgery. Apparently, Trump and his generals believe it is "disruptive" and something to be avoided.  Are you a bigot if you believe that Trump makes a good point?
                                            As to transgender costs, it probably is a tiny percentage of money spent on health costs in the military, but still it is not exactly peanuts.  If genital surgery, hormones, drugs and follow up therapy cost $40,000, as is estimated by some, and 4,000 transition, the cost would be $160 million dollars. Nothing to sneeze at.  Transgender defenders argue that the cost would not exceed $8 million annually, a mere drop in the bucket.  These defenders point out that some $80 million is spent annually by the military for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs, so why not take care of servicemen who wish to transition to another sex.                                                      I was a soldier a good many years ago  and never encountered any transgenders. No one even knew what it meant back in those days. I was curious as to what other former military men and women think about the possible changes among today's troops, so I queried friends who had served their country in more innocent times. 
                                               Gail Carrick of Colorado said she supports the President on this.  "I don't care if gays want to be in the military," she said, "but I draw the line at paying for sex change operations.
                                             "Maybe I am old fashioned," she added.  "I have been reading posts on Facebook where conservatives are quoting the Bible.  My opinions have nothing to do with religion.  I am more of the opinion that our military is not there for social experiments.  I did my 22.5 years in the Air Force and I had a hard enough time with the open bay showers without allowing men to shower with the women.  I don't know who thinks this is a great idea, but I sure don't."
                                                Charlie Morris of the Chicago area was a commander in the Navy and served on the USS Safeguard in the Pacific. He knows how men and women live in close quarters on  ships and submarines  and how the captain is kept busy resolving disputes, some sexual.  Now, says Morris, with bringing the LGBT onto the vessels, there is additional commotion. But be clear, he said, I have no objection to women serving in the navy and in the other branches of the military, and would point out that women have done an outstanding job in the service of our country.
                                                 I do not oppose service from transgenders in the military,  but I would restrict their service to non combat positions, and from service on naval ships, said Morris. "Transgenders on ships are likely to trigger unnecessary disruptions," he added.  
                                                "It makes me shiver to think of the male surgery and what it is that gets attached to the females," said former Navy lieutenant John Siewers of Chicago.  "Let's just say I would prefer not to bunk with them."  
                                                   Former Chicago Tribune labor editor, Jim Strong, said simply "never in combat."  Jim Ward a retired business executive, opined, "I support Trump on this one." 
                                                   Mike Hanley who was a fighter pilot during the Viet Nam war and later a captain for Pan Am and Delta, says he has nothing against transgenders. "I have never known any," he stated.  "I fear, however, that it would be 'hazardous' for these individuals, given the anti-transgender sentiment which seems to be prevalent in the military ranks.  Its safer for them to stay out of the military," he concluded. 
                                                    In the l990s, the country took up the question of gays serving in the military and it was decided that they could serve, but they had to be mute on the topic and not announce their sexual preferences inside or outside of their barracks.  The program was known as "don't ask, don't tell." That remained the rule in the services until a few years ago when President Obama directed that gays, and subsequently, transgenders, could serve openly in the military, and that is the current status.                          
                                                   The tweet from President Trump was indicative of his thinking.  However, his tweets do not have the force of law, and there will be no change in regard to transgenderd serving in the military, until Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, issues a formal directive reversing the current rule which allows them to serve openly and to receive special medical care.
                                                    Could it be his tweet was just a way of testing the waters to see how much hysteria results? 

                                                 xxx


(